Greg KH wrote:> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:19:37AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:>>Greg KH wrote:>>>On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:19:24PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:>>>>Hi Greg,>>>>>>>>this patch fixes the error handling in bus_add_device() and>>>>device_attach(). Previously it was 'interesting'.>>>>And totally confusing to boot.>>>I agree, that's why it has been rewritten in the -mm tree :)>>>>>>Anyway, your patch doesn't take into account that device_attach()'s>>>return value is tested in the bus_rescan_devices_helper(), so if you>>>change the return value, that also needs to be changed.>>>>>>But even in the -mm tree, the bus_add_devices() function has not had the>>>error handling added to it that you provided, is there any devices that>>>you are seeing that need this?>>>>>Not yet :-)>>>>I'm just doing some cleanups here which me and Kay Sievers will be>>exploiting in the near future.>>My main point is:>>either we do an error check in bus_add_device and return a proper>>status, or we don't and fix bus_add_device to be of type 'void'.>>And as some functions called by bus_add_device may fail I thought it>>reasonable to evaluate the return status properly.>>Unless you tell me that bus_add_device is a fire-and-forget procedure>>and we don't care at all for any failures. But then we should at least>>set the type of bus_add_device() to 'void'.>>You're the maintainer, you have to decide :-).>>I don't care either way, I just want to have it consistent.>>>>But you're correct about the bus_rescan_devices_helper. Fixed and new>>patch attached.> > Ok, I agree that we should have error checks in there. Now, could you> make your patch against the latest -mm tree instead due to all of the> changes involved in that area in my trees? That way I can apply it :)> Whee, innovations.Which your patches to -mm the whole thing is even easier and nowactually looks quite sane.New patch attached.